Have the neocons killed a presidency?

worldnetdaily.com ^ | February 16, 2004 | Pat Buchanan

[Chi-townChief]

Patty's still pissed that Reagan was a neocon.

[garylmoore]

But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?

---

Hogwash! He is his own man!

[jaykay]

That also is not conservativisim.

A steady reliable source of reasonably priced oil is essential for economic and national security.

Protecting America's national interests is liberalism? Or "neo-conservatism?"

[Chi-townChief]

I guess it still comes down to definition. To Pat as with Jesse Jackson, Andrew Greeley and others, a neocon is a Jewish conservative.

[Vigilanteman]

An understatement to say the least. Buchanan couldn't even crack a half million votes. But it was still more than five times as many as the "other" Reform Party candidate, Space Cadet Hagelin.

[mr.pink]

Reagan demanded THEY tear down the wall themselves for themselves - he did not say WE will tear it down for you. Understand the difference?

Nice to see that someone here understands the importance of that "difference".

[Bluntpoint]

3 steps forward and one step backwards...3 steps forward and one step backwards...3 steps forward and one step backwards... Is still a forwards direction.

[CGVet58]

Pat is wrong on this, as he is on so many other things. Case in Point: Pat says we had no Casus Belli - he is flat out wrong, and either stupid of the facts, or just plain lying.

Casus Belli was active the moment Saddam broke the conditions of cease-fire back in '91. A cease-fire is a temporary cessation of hostilities predicated on both parties honoring the terms of the same. When these terms are broken, the cease-fire is nullified, and the war continues.

The war did continue, with the uprisings which Bush 41 did at the least encourage, yet (to our eternal shame as a nation...) not support; with the no-fly zones that quickly became hot. I believe history will judge Gulf Wars I & II as being the same conflict, but right now we aren't living "history" (we never do, needing years before we can get a proper historical perspective on things).

Juan

[DugwayDuke]

"To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous."

And, to the paleocon Buchanan, it's all about the jews. Oh, how much safer we'd all be if we would only build a fortress and hide from the world.

[mtbopfuyn]

Where's that blocker for WNN, Debka, et al?

[JohnGalt]

This was a solid 'conservative consensus' article from Pat. He has identified a growing gap and he filled it with a rational that I believe makes a lot sense to a broad range of rightists, knowing that the three of us come to 'conservatism' from different angles. He struck such a moderate tone, he did not even have to mention the 'neocons' who dumped Bush I in 1992.

[mr.pink]

" But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him? "

I gotta' wonder what his Bush I is thinking watching this unfold to his son's detriment.

[Piranha]

I don't think it is unfolding to his son's detriment.

Until 9/11, president Bush's standings in the polls were pretty low. They spiked afterward, and stayed high for a surprisingly long time, given the stridency of the left. I believe that President Bush will pull it through.

As to his relationship with his father, it is interesting to me that his father is giving an award to Ted Kennedy (his son's most strident critic in the Senate) and that President Bush invited his father to his ranch for Thanksgiving, then -- without telling him in advance -- left to go to Iraq to demonstrate his support for the troops that are finishing the job that his father was unable to complete.

[Ciexyz]

I never read anything written by Pat Buchanan. He's lost all credibility with me.

[jedwardtremlett]

hear hear.

If there's a definate strategic interest, or a real threat to face, I have no problem with our charging on in. But sliding into war after war to "Spread democracy" or "end theofascism" smacks of ultra-protectionist, empire-mongering twaddle.

I supported what we did in Iraq, just not for the same reasons we were sold on it. And I'd support a trip into North Korea for much the same reasons if we could do it without irradiating Japan or getting China involved.

But I don't support forays into Iran, Syria or any of the other Middle Eastern hotspots just because things would be "better" for the region if they were just like us. That's a pipe dream.

J

[SunStar]

thanks for proving my point- neocons are loyal to their agenda not the the agenda of whatever party the belong to.

So are paleocons.

[mr.pink]

...the troops that are finishing the job that his father was unable to complete.

That's one of the biggest BS lines that for whatever reason too many people accept as a fact.

Bush I won the Gulf war according to the exact parameters set up by the coalition, therefore it was 100% complete.

Now if you'd like to discuss why the world failed to capitalize on that victory, count me in....but if you're going to try to sell the monday morning QB angle du jour....I'll pass.

[u-89]

What Buchanan concludes about the mentioned neocons is accurate, they have a long paper trail on the matter and their words and deeds are historic record whether one likes Buchanan or not. However the neoncon ideas for remaking the mid east and forging a global Pax Americana is only one side of a multifaceted issue.

You are correct about oil but for the wrong reasons. On the face of it the First Gulf War was about cheap oil but that argument does not hold up to scrutiny. Saddam made his money off of oil. It serves him no good to withhold oil from the US. We would have mid east oil no matter who controlled it. The current war against Iraq could not logically be construed about the oil supply in any way though. However one could argue it being over the petrol market being based on dollars rather than euros, a matter which is of critical importance to us. It also is about which countries' corporations get the oil contracts in Iraq - France and Russia or the US and Britain.

Furthermore the war is about strategic positioning of our military further into the region in order to secure the development and export of central Asian oil deposits. Stabilizing Afghanistan and placing a friendly regime in there also furthers this end, coincidentally. Conclusion - the war is over power and money and who is top dog in that equation. Of course playing kng of the world was never a tenet of conservatism. Perhaps we have a "new" conservatism indeed.

[joesnuffy]

"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.

Ahhh those wonderfull Machievelian platitudes do turn 'the boyze' heads....

'thesis-antithesis-synthesis' 'management by crisis' 'third way' 'sustainable development'

'points of light' 'new world order' the irresistable siren's call of 'blind ambition'

led many a good man down the wrong path....